pshun challenge

[AV1611VET]

Can a tiger reproduce with a sand cat?

They should, according to you post.

I give up ... can it? are they in the same genus?

 

[Larniavc]

I give up ... can it? are they in the same genus?

They are separate genuseses.

What does that tell you?

 

[AV1611VET]

They are separate genuseses.

What does that tell you?

That they are two different kinds; as I stipulated earlier?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's what I thought.

Same species, different breeds.

Nice way for science to get around that problem, isn't it?

Dogs = different breeds, but [for some reason] bats = different species.

Only Satan could make propaganda like that stick.

There are many different species of bats, there are also many different species of canines. But dog breeds are not different species. Wolves and jackals are different species, pit bulls and poodles are the same species but different breeds.

The golden-capped fruit bat is an entirely different species than the bronze tube-nosed bat; they are not only different species they are different genera and entirely different families.

But, sure, Satanic propaganda.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

The golden-capped fruit bat is an entirely different species than the bronze tube-nosed bat; they are not only different species they are different genera and entirely different families.

Any particular reason why they are in two different genera, according to science?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Any particular reason why they are in two different genera, according to science?

Because they are more distantly related, not very closely related. It's like comparing foxes, tanukis, and wolves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they are more distantly related, not very closely related. It's like comparing foxes, tanukis, and wolves.

Then why are they called "bats"?

 

[Larniavc]

That they are two different kinds; as I stipulated earlier?

So a tiger is a different kind to a sand cat?

Really?

 

[Larniavc]

Then why are they called "bats"?

Bats are an Order, not Genus.

So by your logic they are different kinds as you said kind was genus.

Oh, dear.

 

[AV1611VET]

So by your logic they are different kinds as you said kind was genus.

So what's the problem then?

Why are we having this conversation?

If two golden-capped fruit bats and two bronze tube-nosed bats got aboard the Ark, what's all the hullabaloo about?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then why are they called "bats"?

Because we call all chiropterans "bats".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Larniavc]

So what's the problem then?

Why are we having this conversation?

If two golden-capped fruit bats and two bronze tube-nosed bats got aboard the Ark, what's all the hullabaloo about?

It is showing to all and sundarie that you don't have a good grasp on this topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is showing to all and sundarie that you don't have a good grasp on this topic.

I may not have a good grasp on this topic, but please show me how "kind" can't be defined as "genus."

For instance, can a golden-capped fruit bat mate with a bronze tube-nosed bat and produce a viable offspring?

 

[Larniavc]

I may not have a good grasp on this topic, but please show me how "kind" can't be defined as "genus."

For instance, can a golden-capped fruit bat mate with a bronze tube-nosed bat and produce a viable offspring?

No they can't, but they are still bats and in theory a tiger and a sand cat could produce offspring (albeit sterile) despite being of different genus (which you equated to kind).

So kind cannot be defined as genus.

 

[pshun2404]

The hyper-evolution proposed by YECs to fill the logical gaps left by the flood narrative are completely counter to evidence.

If you are comfortable in abandoning science, then feel free to do so. An omnipotent deity is an explanation for any mystery, but you can no longer claim evidence or reason have any real meaning.

I never made the claim...

 

[pshun2404]

Pshun wrote:

How many bat-kinds do you suppose were on the ark?

I ask because there are around 1000 species around today.

If there was but a single breeding Kind-pair, and the ark myth supposedly happened 4500 years ago, that is roughly 1 speciation even every 4 years or so.

What is your proposed, evidence-supported mechanism for this?

Actual speciation which produces variety, and you are working on the unfounded assumption I agree with Bishop Usshers 4000 year chronology which I do not. Secondly, the process not being uniformly gradualistic (like actual natural processes are) variety may have moved between a greater number of variants and allele reinforcing communities occurring or lesser differing from generation to generation.

I did however take some time to consider the possible population growth algorithm. From four originals I assumed a pop of 10 (an admittedly minimalistic assumption as it could have been more or less) after the first year out which would/could produce as many 50 (2nd year) which can produce as many as 75-100 (or more) and so on...so first year a 250% increase in pop size then a 500% increase in pop size, then 1000% increase and so on....now bats tend to live around 30 years so if we imagine this is happening in such exponential leaps (actually forever since then) just in the first 25 or so seasons until the first generation dies out...WOW!!!!! In fact I am surprised there is ONLY this many...thank God for natural selection.

Not knowing how many basic varieties the four on the Ark represented, I am sure God was smart enough to make sure they had the genetic propensity to produce all subsequent variety (just as we see in humans)

 

[pshun2404]

No they can't, but they are still bats and in theory a tiger and a sand cat could produce offspring (albeit sterile) despite being of different genus (which you equated to kind).

So kind cannot be defined as genus.

Actually the Hebrew when translated into Greek (the LXX) uses a word more akin to "species"....

 

[Speedwell]

Actually the Hebrew when translated into Greek (the LXX) uses a word more akin to "species"....

What evidence do you have that the use of the word "kind" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy? I believe that the more usual interpretation is that it is intended to express the orderliness of nature--figs don't grow on apple trees, cows do not give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. In a sense it is an expression of the Darwinian Principle of Reproductive Similarity.

 

[AV1611VET]

So kind cannot be defined as genus.

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

What evidence do you have that the use of the word "kind" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy? I believe that the more usual interpretation is that it is intended to express the orderliness of nature--figs don't grow on apple trees, cows do not give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. In a sense it is an expression of the Darwinian Principle of Reproductive Similarity.

The Bible has a built-in dictionary of certain words.

Here is the Biblical definition of "kind:"

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.